I'm pretty sure even most Britains don't actually want their country to become a failed state. They've just been duped by Neo-Fascist Quisling scum like Farage.

Given Britain's history (it's colonial endeavors near and far make for some pretty damn grim reading)... I wouldn't say duped... at least not completely. Given that Brexit has been under MI-5's microscope (and like any counter-intel operation, not a peep is coming out), it is probably a combination of overarching mentality coming to roost (Britain was completely dead set on 'Europe must be Divided at all Costs'), the gutting of various key countermeasures (i.e. the House of Lords and the crown getting their power for all intents and purposes taken away from them), and Russia doing an intensive cyber-war and mimetic campaign alongside some duped.

I wouldn't be surprised that once this shit show is done and over with, we'll see a severe reversal in how power is distributed in Britain.

Well, not so much a redistribution as secession, in the worst case scenario. Violent Irish unification and Scotland telling London to bugger off are both conceivable outcomes of a bad no-deal Brexit.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

Well, not so much a redistribution as secession, in the worst case scenario. Violent Irish unification and Scotland telling London to bugger off are both conceivable outcomes of a bad no-deal Brexit.

It depends on how the EU treats this. If reality keeps taking notes from my Future Timeline, then we'll see the EU get so sick and tired of Britain's shit that it'll lump Scotland and North Ireland with Britain and basically forbid Scotland from re-entering the EU... partially because the EU doesn't want to have to fight a war with Britain and partially because 'emotional reasons'...

As things stand, Scotland wouldn't qualify for re-admission anyway, I forget which of the prerequisites Scotland doesn't meet. Scotland's best chance of staying in is to have a second SI referendum before the UK actually leaves the EU.

It's no use debating a moron; they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Just because you have the attention span of a fruit fly doesn't mean the rest of us are so encumbered.

"As you know science is not fact"- HuskerJay
"The Delta Fyler [sic] isn't even a shuttle craft" -HuskerJay69
"The Dominion War wasn't really all that bad"- Admiral Mercury

As things stand, Scotland wouldn't qualify for re-admission anyway, I forget which of the prerequisites Scotland doesn't meet. Scotland's best chance of staying in is to have a second SI referendum before the UK actually leaves the EU.

Eh, that won't happen, because the EU would be forced to go to war when Britain tries to reconquer Scotland. The EU doesn't want a war unless one of two things happen: the US is involved or the situation is so dire that war is the only answer.

So it is likely that Scotland would be forced to stay on the sinking ship that is the SS Britain as the EU basically shoots the lifeboats.

To the best of my knowledge, the only issues for Scotland joining the EU are currency, justice and home affairs, and Shengen. The latter two assume that an independent Scotland actually wants an opt-out over justice and home affairs (as the UK currently has) and does not want to join Shengen as opposed to the Common Travel Area. The CTA only exists because Britain didn't want to join Shengen, so Ireland might just go for Shengen regardless post-Brexit.

Currency is the big one, as the EU would almost certainly insist on a commitment to join the Euro; though actually doing so would not have to be immediate. Scotland sticking with the Pound Sterling would complicate this (IIRC), and setting up a Scottish currency could take a while; long enough that it might be easier and cheaper just to join the Euro.

That said, the general consensus (outside the pro-Brexit press) seems to be that none of these are deal-breakers. An independent Scotland should be able to join the EU fairly smoothly and quickly; though it might take a year or two. Scotland will choose this path either because being yanked out of the Single Market will wreck its economy anyway, or because it is quite simply sick to the back teeth of Boris Johnson and those like him.

As for a rump England invading Scotland; well, it might happen, ironically for much the same reasons that the EU will make an effort for Scotland. Apart from anything else - including potentially rerouting air lanes - Scotland will bring with it all of Britain's oil (the North Sea fields anyway) and two thirds of the UK's fishing grounds. Also, an independent Scotland would arguably be an intolerable threat to British/English national security and independence; at least by Brexiter standards.

I don't see the EU cravenly backing down though. The EU has a bad rep in military matters, and stomping England for armed aggression would be a convenient and relatively risk-free way to counter that image. What's more, they don't even need to put boots on the ground; at the very least they have the numbers and tech to blockade the whole of Britain, and to sink the Royal Navy if it tries to resist.

Yeah, there's no way the EU will back down. It doesn't need to. Boris' attitude is the equivalent of a guy on a bicycle playing a game of chicken against a truck, but the Brexit Bunch Bullshitters can't (or won't) see it.

I found this on the European Commission website:

Conditions for membership

The EU operates comprehensive approval procedures that ensure new members are admitted only when they can demonstrate they will be able to play their part fully as members, namely by:

complying with all the EU's standards and rules
having the consent of the EU institutions and EU member states
having the consent of their citizens – as expressed through approval in their national parliament or by referendum.

Membership criteria – Who can join?

The Treaty on the European Union states that any European country may apply for membership if it respects the democratic values of the EU and is committed to promoting them.

The first step is for the country to meet the key criteria for accession. These were mainly defined at the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993 and are hence referred to as 'Copenhagen criteria'. Countries wishing to join need to have:

stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

The EU also needs to be able to integrate new members.

In the case of the countries of the Western Balkans additional conditions for membership, were set out in the so-called 'Stabilisation and Association process', mostly relating to regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations.
What is negotiated?

The conditions and timing of the candidate's adoption, implementation and enforcement of all current EU rules (the "acquis").

These rules are divided into 35 different policy fields (chapters), such as transport, energy, environment, etc., each of which is negotiated separately.

Other issues discussed:

financial arrangements – such as how much the new member is likely to pay into and receive from the EU budget (in the form of transfers)
transitional arrangements – sometimes certain rules are phased in gradually, to give the new member or existing members time to adapt.

Oversight by the EU institutions

Throughout the negotiations, the Commission monitors the candidate's progress in applying EU legislation and meeting its other commitments, including any benchmark requirements.

This gives the candidate additional guidance as it assumes the responsibilities of membership, as well as an assurance to current members that the candidate is meeting the conditions for joining.

The Commission also keeps the EU Council and European Parliament informed throughout the process, through regular reports, strategy papersSearch for available translations of the preceding link••• , and clarifications on conditions for further progress.

There was this from a Brexit Party member:

There is no problem other than the invented ones by the ROI and the EU.

FOM has been in force between NI and ROI since 1923, it precedes the EU and is a legally binding agreement that allows any Irish citizens the right to travel etc between the countries with minimal checks, no travel is allowed to mainland U.K. without producing official documentation eg passport or driving licence, travel companies etc will not issue tickets without it.

Goods travelling between U.K. and ROI are subject to more physical checks on average (6%) than any other imported goods from other countries (3%), technology can cover the majority of requirements despite the EU’s insistence that the technology does not yet exist .. though they are installing that non existing technology in Calais in preparation for a no deal Brexit.

There is an international law that allows a country to open or close a border based on security problems, ie where a closed border could create violence, this law allows for no tariffs etc between those countries WITHOUT it effecting tariffs with other countries, this overcomes the WTO most favoured nation rule.

The GFA makes zero mention of custom borders, in fact borders are mentioned only once in relation to military borders.

So in essence there is no requirement for a hard border at all.

I'm sure there's a flaw in his claim that I'm just not seeing, but I don't know enough about the specifics to find it.

It's no use debating a moron; they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Just because you have the attention span of a fruit fly doesn't mean the rest of us are so encumbered.

"As you know science is not fact"- HuskerJay
"The Delta Fyler [sic] isn't even a shuttle craft" -HuskerJay69
"The Dominion War wasn't really all that bad"- Admiral Mercury

As an amusing aside, one of the top five winning jokes from this year's Edinburgh Fringe:

What's driving Brexit? At the moment it seems to be the Duke of Edinburgh.

Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.

Well Boris is meeting Merkel in Berlin on his first overseas trip, one of the BBC journalists has hit the nail on the head, questioning if all he was doing was posturing so that when he fails he can just claim it was the EU being difficult.

It's no use debating a moron; they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Just because you have the attention span of a fruit fly doesn't mean the rest of us are so encumbered.

"As you know science is not fact"- HuskerJay
"The Delta Fyler [sic] isn't even a shuttle craft" -HuskerJay69
"The Dominion War wasn't really all that bad"- Admiral Mercury

Well Boris is meeting Merkel in Berlin on his first overseas trip, one of the BBC journalists has hit the nail on the head, questioning if all he was doing was posturing so that when he fails he can just claim it was the EU being difficult.

That's almost certainly his plan, but it won't necessarily save him. I suspect a lot of people will buy his protestations that the EU was being a big meanie, but if his promised utopia does not materialize, he is going to get blamed regardless; for the simple crime of not delivering.

Since Parliament is normally suspended before the speech, the decision means opposition MPs would be unlikely to have enough time to pass laws blocking the U.K.'s exit from the European Union on Oct. 31 without a negotiated deal.

"So it seems that Boris Johnson may actually be about to shut down Parliament to force through a no-deal Brexit," Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted. "Unless MPs come together to stop him next week, today will go down in history as a dark one indeed for U.K. democracy."

Another strong condemnation came from the Labour Party's home affairs spokesperson, Diane Abbott.

'Aiming for a coup'
"Boris Johnson is aiming for a coup against Parliament. Against you the voters and your political representatives. For a disastrous No Deal," Abbott said in a tweet.

Labour MP Dame Margaret Beckett told the BBC that Johnson is "exploiting the Queen" in order to prevent Parliament from stopping a no-deal Brexit.

"It is blindingly obvious that the purpose of prorogation now would be to stop Parliament debating Brexit and performing its duty in shaping a course for the country," Commons Speaker John Bercow told Press Association, adding that it's a "constitutional outrage."

Speaking in Brussels, European Commission spokesperson Mina Andreeva said the EU will not comment on "internal political procedures" of member states or "speculate what this means in terms of next steps in the U.K.'s parliamentary procedures."

Keir Starmer, the Labour Party's Brexit spokesperson, signs the Church House Declaration during an event in London on Tuesday about opposing the suspension of the U.K. Parliament to prevent no-deal Brexit. (Henry Nicholls/Reuters)
The pound plunged on the news, down to $1.22 US from almost $1.23 the previous day.

A day earlier, opposition legislators declared they will work together to try to stop a departure from the European Union without an agreement, setting up a legislative challenge to Johnson and his promise to complete the divorce by Oct. 31— come what may.

Some 160 MPs have signed a declaration pledging "to do whatever is necessary" to prevent Johnson from bypassing Parliament in his plans. Johnson's do-or-die promise has raised worries about a disorderly divorce that would see new tariffs on trade and border checks between Britain and the EU, seriously disrupting business.

CBC EXPLAINSWill Brexit be delayed?
Johnson had refused to rule out suspending Parliament, saying it was up to legislators to carry out the decision of the 2016 referendum to leave the EU and that the public is "yearning for a moment when Brexit comes off the front pages."

Johnson has told European Union officials it won't be possible to stop Britain's departure from the trading bloc without the removal of controversial language about a "backstop" to avoid the return of a border between EU member Ireland and Britain's Northern Ireland. He said at the close of the G7 summit in Biarritz, France, Monday that he was "marginally more optimistic," of progress.

In my opinion, this level of deliberate, malicious sabotage of his own nation (not to mention the Irish peace process) ought to be regarded as downright treasonous.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

Boris Johnson’s plan to prorogue parliament ahead of a Queen’s speech on 14 October is intended to provoke parliamentarians into blocking a no-deal Brexit, or triggering a general election through a vote of no confidence. Both are feasible in the time available.

The last time parliament stepped in to block no deal earlier in the year, the necessary legislation was passed in just three days. Johnson has deliberately left enough time for parliament to seize control again. That’s because Johnson’s real objective is to use Brexit to win a general election, rather than use a general election to secure Brexit. By forcing the hands of his opponents, he has defined the terrain for a “people versus parliament” election. Expect him to run on “Back Boris, Take Back Britain”. He will say that the only way to definitely leave on 31 October is to give him a parliamentary majority to do so. The man of Eton, Oxford and the Telegraph will position himself as the leader of the people against the hated establishment and “remainer elite”.

Johnson’s electoral strategy is simple: unite the Brexit-supporting right of politics behind him while remainers are fractured across Labour, the SNP, Liberal Democrats and Greens. Since the day he took office, Johnson has been acting to consolidate the votes of leave supporters behind him. From Brexit party supporters to leave-backing Labour voters, Johnson has sought to create a winning electoral coalition.

The Tories have spent recent weeks closing off predicted Labour attack lines. Sajid Javid has announced a one-year spending review will take place on 4 September. After nearly a decade of relentless reductions in spending, the public have plainly tired of austerity. Waiting times in the NHS are longer; class sizes are larger; and the police are no longer able to keep up with rising crime or keep many communities safe. Johnson’s government has already promised more spending in each of these areas.

But these are very Tory announcements, with an added rightwing edge. So the leaked proposal to invest in schools is to be accompanied by proposals to allow teachers to use “reasonable force” against pupils, and the additional resources for the police include proposals to allow all officers to carry Tasers. There is no serious public policy discussion about precisely how much force grown adults should use against children, just as the problem with knife crime is not the police’s ability to pacify knife-wielding youths with Tasers. These plans are red meat for the Tory base, designed to distract from rather than solve the problems our society faces.

The political logic is obvious. In 2017, Theresa May lost the slim Tory majority she inherited from her predecessor in an election campaign that turned away from Brexit and towards the state of the country at home. Labour’s clear anti-austerity message resonated across the Brexit divide and paid electoral dividends for the party. Johnson is aiming to prevent such a turn taking place this time.

Yet the public will be sceptical that the same people who needlessly degraded public services are now prepared to invest in them. While Johnson is unconstrained by principle or the shackles of ideology, he leads a cabinet of the hard right of the Conservative party. For those who have dedicated a lifetime to hacking back the state and severing Britain’s ties with the European Union, it seems unlikely that they are on board with a project of investment in public services. But they are certainly committed to a no-deal exit that is an Atlanticist project rather than a unilateralist one – and to the aggressive tax cuts that Johnson has promised. This is a government that intends to realign Britain to the US and is set to govern just like US Republicans – cut taxes first, then maintain spending to blow up the deficit before using that to justify far deeper spending cuts.

So why would the public believe what Johnson says? The real secret of populists, from Donald Trump to Matteo Salvini to Johnson, is the conflation of transgression with truthfulness. The willingness to engage in bigotry and violate hard-won social norms against racist, homophobic or misogynistic language convinces people that these politicians “speak their mind” and “say what they think”. Paradoxically, their lack of virtue confirms their veracity.

Their bigotry is the result of calculation rather than miscalculation – and the predictable howls of outrage from critics only serves to amplify the message. The upcoming election will turn on whether Johnson is found out for what he is: Trump with a thesaurus, whose real agenda of a Brexit for the elite is disguised behind the thin veneer of a few spending announcements that come after a desperate decade of the degradation of Britain at home and abroad.

• Tom Kibasi is director of the Institute for Public Policy Research. He writes in a personal capacity

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

London (CNN)The Queen cherishes her annual retreat at Balmoral, the remote Victorian estate that nestles deep in Scotland's Dee valley.

She is woken by a lone piper, goes for walks in the grounds, attends Sunday services at the picturesque Crathie Kirk church.
It's a world away from the business of state, which carries on 500 miles away in London.

But that doesn't mean that the business of state doesn't occasionally come to her. On Wednesday morning she was interrupted by a request from the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, asking her to suspend Parliament for more than a month.

Three members of the Privy Council, a small group of senior parliamentarians who advise the monarch on the exercise of her constitutional powers, arrived in rural Aberdeenshire to convey the request to the Queen.

It sounds dramatic, but it ought to be routine. Every so often, the government of the day resets parliamentary calendar with a fresh legislative program, keeping the business of government focused around a defined set of priorities. Typically, this happens once a year, and in recent years has occurred in the fall.

But these are not usual times. The latest deadline for Britain to leave the European Union, October 31, is fast approaching. Johnson has said that he's prepared to quit without a deal. The most divisive of political issues is reaching its apex.

Many lawmakers oppose a no-deal Brexit, and have been plotting to oppose it. Critics say Johnson's decision to start a new parliamentary session on October 14 -- and precede it with an unusually long break of up to five weeks -- is a ruse to shut down the options of his political opponents.

The leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, wrote to Her Majesty calling the move an "outrage and a threat to our democracy." There is speculation that, if Johnson loses a vote of confidence next week, he could set in motion plans for a general election on November 1, the day after Brexit day.

That means parliament wouldn't be sitting on one of the momentous days in modern British political history.

But if Johnson loses a vote of no-confidence, it would fall to the Queen to appoint a new prime minister who could demonstrate they could command a majority of the House of Commons.

If Johnson gets his way, the Queen will preside over the State Opening of Parliament on October 14 and deliver a speech setting out the government's legislative program -- with Brexit at its heart.

All this has put the Queen exactly where she doesn't want to be -- at the center of the biggest political crisis in modern British history.

Queen Elizabeth is revered for her ability to remain above politics, barely expressing any personal views, let alone party political ones. She sticks rigidly to the custom of only acting on the advice of ministers, to avoid the monarchy being used as a political football.

In this case, Johnson is the minister but if any of the moves to oppose a no-deal Brexit succeed, the only person empowered to arbitrate may be the Queen.

Ultimately, Parliament is sovereign and the only body, ultimately, with the power to unseat her.

There is no written constitution in the UK to refer to and no precedent for this crisis. That leaves the Queen with a lot to consider during what's left of her summer break -- the role of monarchy in British political life, no less.

But before that, she must come up with a form of words to write back to Corbyn, without actually giving away what she thinks.

Sorry, Your Majesty: no one gets to be politically neutral in the face of rising fascism, not even the Queen. You're either part of the resistance, or a collaborator.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

No, not the words of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson but of a man he studied and read when he took a degree in Roman and Greek classics at Oxford.

The man was Julius Caesar. The words are those he is supposed to have uttered as he crossed the Rubicon. He thus defied the Senate of Rome before riding to the capital in 49 B.C. and unleashing a civil war that brought him to almost complete power.

Proroguing, or suspending, the British Parliament for five weeks as the Brexit deadline looms isn't quite as fateful, but it imitates the style of Caesar. It is stunning, unexpected and brutal.

Like the Roman leader, Johnson is rolling the dice.

No alternative to backstop
Consider: Johnson has a majority of just one in the House of Commons. He was elected Conservative leader and prime minister in July by Conservative party members — fewer than one half of one per cent of the British electorate. Opinion polls regularly show a large majority against his preferred policy: a no-deal Brexit, which would see Britain crashing out of the European Union on Oct. 31 with no trade agreement at all.

Queen approves request to suspend U.K. Parliament amid Brexit crisis
His negotiating position has been to tell the EU to back down on the so-called Irish backstop — a measure that would keep an almost completely open border between British Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, in line with the Good Friday Agreement signed between Britain and Ireland more than 20 years ago. The Republic of Ireland is, and will remain, a staunch member of the EU.

Johnson calls the backstop unacceptable and undemocratic, a sort of cheaters' back door to allow European goods into an independent Britain. The Europeans have asked Johnson to suggest another way. He hasn't — at least not yet.

Instead, he has lobbed a cannon shell into his own parliament. Like Caesar, he surveys a disunited opposition and gambles that this blow will disunite them even further.

It may not.

Caesar's actions, after all, unleashed bloody civil wars in a bitterly divided country. Having defeated his enemies, he was able to rule virtually unimpeded for three years, transforming the political face of the Roman republic. Then he was assassinated by plotting senators.

'A constitutional outrage'
Johnson, too, will find himself fighting battles on several fronts. The cries of "Shame!" from opposition leaders were to be expected. The denunciation of the prorogation from the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, was, however, completely without precedent. He called Johnson's move "a constitutional outrage."

Even more astonishing was the attack from a former Conservative prime minister, John Major. He all but called Johnson a renegade and a traitor to the principles upheld by the greatest Conservative prime ministers of the past.

"I cannot imagine," Major said, "Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Churchill or Mrs. Thatcher even in their most difficult moments saying let us put Parliament aside while I carry through this difficult policy that a part of my party disagrees with."

UK opposition legislators join forces against no-deal Brexit
Major didn't stop there. He said he was taking legal advice to see if the courts could stop the suspension of Parliament.

Meanwhile, anti-Johnson and anti-prorogation demonstrations were hastily being organized around the country.

'Mr. No Deal'
And then there are the Europeans.

They were already deeply suspicious of Johnson and his hardball tactics. The European Council president, Donald Tusk, said publicly that Johnson might become known derisively as "Mr. No Deal" in the history books. Johnson then upped the ante by suggesting the U.K. wouldn't have to pay a huge chunk of the 36.3 billion pounds (around $59 billion Cdn) his government had already agreed it owed Brussels when Brexit is completed.

The suspension of Parliament merely stoked European rage. Nathalie Loiseau, the former French minister for Europe and current Member of the European Parliament who has the ear of French President Emmanuel Macron, reacted on Twitter with this diatribe: "We saw a no-deal Brexit approaching. Now, as well, we're getting a no-debate Brexit. What sort of illness is British democracy suffering from when it fears a debate before taking one of the most important decisions in its history?"

In the storm of denunciations, there is one somewhat overlooked question: Why is Johnson rolling the dice this way? The answer may lie in events three years ago. Then, in the days after the British referendum was won by the "Leave" forces he had led, he seemed all but assured of becoming prime minister when the sitting PM, David Cameron, resigned. But Johnson ducked the challenge.

He had been unexpectedly savaged by his ally Michael Gove as not up to the job, and he appeared to lose his nerve. He backed out of the race. Theresa May became PM.

Leaked U.K. government memos warn of food, drug shortages in a 'no-deal' Brexit
Her resignation in June this year offered him a second chance. He seemed determined not only to take it, but to take it like Caesar. He ran on a radical, dice-rattling position of "do or die" Brexit by Oct. 31. Then it became no-deal Brexit.

And now the temporary shoving aside of Parliament.

Caesar, like Johnson, was a writer as well as a politician. He wrote, "I am prepared to resort to anything for the sake of the republic." By the republic, he also meant himself. It's a stance Johnson seems determined to imitate.

Caesar also said, according to his Roman biographer Plutarch, "It's not the well-fed men I fear but the pale and hungry ones."

Johnson will soon discover how pale and hungry his opponents are.

The CBC's title for this article:

"Boris Johnson's leadership style resembles that of Caesar-and remember how that ended"

Well. That's not ominous at all.

Anyhow, even some Conservatives have reacted with rage, as noted above. The House Speaker has condemned it as a "a constitutional outrage", and former Conservative Prime Minister John Major is pursuing legal action to block it.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

Sorry, Your Majesty: no one gets to be politically neutral in the face of rising fascism, not even the Queen. You're either part of the resistance, or a collaborator.

Do you not understand the point of a constitutional monarchy? Or are you just being idiotic in trying to frame everything in a simple black/white narrative?

Even if the queen personally object to it, her role as a constitutional monarch forbids her from taking any action against the government. It's not about the queen wanting to be politically neutral. She must be politically neutral unless you want to spark off another constitutional crisis in the midst of all this.

Seriously, your inability to react in any measured manner is only going to make it easier for far-right to portray left-wing members as idiots. All of your actions is actively hindering the progressive movement. Far-right loves people like you because they can use you as an example of idiotic left-wingers for them to bash and look smarter than they really are, because you give them an easy punching bag.

Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

MEPs plan to trigger EU rule of law investigation into Boris Johnson's government over suspension of parliament

Exclusive MEPs from across Europe back the plan to safeguard democratic rights

Jon Stone

MEPs from across the EU are organising to trigger a formal investigation into the British government for breaching of the rule of law because of Boris Johnson’s “disturbing” move to suspend parliament, The Independent can reveal.

EU parliamentarians are circulating an emergency question to the European Commission calling for action under Article 7 of the EU’s founding treaty, which has been used to censure countries such as Poland and Hungary when their governments have been deemed to be undermining democracy or fundamental rights.

The bid, launched on Wednesday evening, already has the backing of dozens of MEPs from member states including France, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Denmark – and drawn from all of the parliament’s mainstream political groups. MEPs have until next Monday to put their name to the proposal, when it will be sent to the commission, and organisers say new signatories are being added every few minutes.

The emergency call states that the UK government’s suspension of the Commons, described by its own speaker as “an offence against the democratic process” and a “constitutional outrage” – “will have the effect of preventing the parliament from exercising its legislative function, providing checks and balances to the executive and in particular from taking parliamentary action in relation to the Brexit process”.

The MEPs ask whether the commission is aware of “any precedent where a member state has suspended its parliament for such a length of time or at such a moment of importance” and asks how the commission assesses “the compliance of the UK as a current EU member with the EU rule of law standards, in particular with the respect for fundamental values referred to in Article 2” of the bloc’s treaties.

It concludes: “Whereas the commission has taken infringement action against member states by invoking Article 7 of the TEU [Treaty on European Union], will the commission consider doing so urgently in this case, considering the clear risk of a serious breach by the UK of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU?”

Sophie in ’t Veld, one of the MEPs backing the motion, was among those who led the charge against Viktor Orban’s nationalist government in Hungary, which has been accused of violations of fundamental rights. The European parliament voted by a two-thirds majority last year to force the commission to trigger rule of law proceedings against the central European state.

“If in any EU member state the government would suspend parliament at such a crucial moment, it would be considered a ‘clear risk of a serious breach’ of the values enshrined in the EU treaties, and a sanctions procedure would be initiated,” she told The Independent.

“In 1993 the heads of government decided that EU membership ‘requires that candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy’. It is obvious that the move of Boris Johnson is contrary to that requirement.”

Antony Hook, a British Liberal Democrat MEP who is coordinating the bid said: “Suspending the UK’s parliament for political convenience is clearly against the fundamental principles of the European Union and the basic principles that any parliamentary democracy should uphold.
Inside Politics newsletter

“We will all recall disturbing events from history to which this could be compared. I hope the European Commission will investigate any potential breach of EU rule of law standards as a matter of urgency and take action. British citizens remain European citizens and are entitled to the same protection of their fundamental rights to which European citizens are entitled.”

Earlier on Wednesday the European parliament’s Brexit coordinator Guy Verhofstadt described the decision by Mr Johnson’s government as “sinister” and expressed solidarity with British MPs, who face being temporarily locked out of the Commons.

European parliament president David Sassoli also appeared to criticise the decision to lock out MPs, tweeting on Wednesday evening: “Listening to parliaments is always good for democracy. For this reason it is better to keep them open.”

To trigger rule of law proceedings on its own MEPs would require a vote by a two-thirds majority, but the commission can launch proceedings without parliament’s explicit mandate if it believes there is a threat to rule of law. Such an investigation would likely be highly politically contentious and it is unlikely that EU officials would want to further destabilise Brexit talks by intervening, however.

The European Commission took a diplomatic line on the UK government’s move, which No 10 says is merely standard practice. A spokesperson for the EU’s executive said questions about the decision were for the UK authorities to address.

“With regards to the UK government decision to suspend the parliament sittings until 14 October, we’re not commenting on internal political procedures of our member states, and we’re also not going to speculate on what this means in terms of next steps in the UK’s parliamentary procedures. I think this is for the UK to answer,” the spokesperson told reporters in Brussels, before the MEPs moved to call for a probe.

Under the government’s plan parliament would be prorogued for 23 days until 14 October, just days before the UK is due to crash out without a deal. MPs cannot block prorogation. A snap poll conducted by YouGov on Wednesday after the announcement found that the British public believe it is unacceptable for parliament to be suspended by 47 per cent to 27 per cent.

In short, they're trying to do to the UK what they tried to do to Poland and Hungary; hit it with Article 7 of the TEU.

Sorry, Your Majesty: no one gets to be politically neutral in the face of rising fascism, not even the Queen. You're either part of the resistance, or a collaborator.

Do you not understand the point of a constitutional monarchy? Or are you just being idiotic in trying to frame everything in a simple black/white narrative?

Even if the queen personally object to it, her role as a constitutional monarch forbids her from taking any action against the government. It's not about the queen wanting to be politically neutral. She must be politically neutral unless you want to spark off another constitutional crisis in the midst of all this.

Seriously, your inability to react in any measured manner is only going to make it easier for far-right to portray left-wing members as idiots. All of your actions is actively hindering the progressive movement. Far-right loves people like you because they can use you as an example of idiotic left-wingers for them to bash and look smarter than they really are, because you give them an easy punching bag.

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I should be more "moderate" and "civil", like all those Centrists Democrats who chided progressive activists for not being more polite to the people locking little children in cages. Look at the last twenty years and see where civility and cautiousness have gotten us when dealing with the Reich.

I'm not going to worry overmuch about how the neo-fascists will spin what I say. IT DOESN'T MATTER. In their narrative I am a communist and a terrorist promoting white genocide, and deserve to be murdered, simply because I'm not one of them. If I take a radical position, they'll call me a dangerous extremist. If I don't, they'll do that anyway, while also using me as an example of a cowardly Centrist who doesn't stand for anything, thereby "proving" that Both Sides Are Just As Bad.

I say what I think, and right or wrong, I'm not going to base it on trying to placate the Reich.

Hell, I've been compared to a collaborator on this board before for opposing Left-wing militia violence, so don't tell me to be more moderate in my response.

I know what the normally-expected role of the Queen is. I know that there's no good answer here. I also know that this motherfucker's going to start a recession, restart the Irish Troubles and decades of misery and bloodshed, and possibly lead to the disintegration of Britain as a country for the sake of appealing to racists to advance his personal power.

Edit: Fascists are like sharks. They smell weakness like sharks smell blood in the water, and it just encourages them to push further. I'm not saying we should be as violent or corrupt or dishonest or hateful as them, because if we were there'd be no point to any of this. But I'm done with "safe", "moderate" positions and trying not to sound too "extreme" because of how the fascists might react. You know what a fascist sees when they see a moderate?

An easy target.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

Sorry, Your Majesty: no one gets to be politically neutral in the face of rising fascism, not even the Queen. You're either part of the resistance, or a collaborator.

Do you not understand the point of a constitutional monarchy? Or are you just being idiotic in trying to frame everything in a simple black/white narrative?

Even if the queen personally object to it, her role as a constitutional monarch forbids her from taking any action against the government. It's not about the queen wanting to be politically neutral. She must be politically neutral unless you want to spark off another constitutional crisis in the midst of all this.

Seriously, your inability to react in any measured manner is only going to make it easier for far-right to portray left-wing members as idiots. All of your actions is actively hindering the progressive movement. Far-right loves people like you because they can use you as an example of idiotic left-wingers for them to bash and look smarter than they really are, because you give them an easy punching bag.

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I should be more "moderate" and "civil", like all those Centrists Democrats who chided progressive activists for not being more polite to the people locking little children in cages. Look at the last twenty years and see where civility and cautiousness have gotten us when dealing with the Reich.

I'm not going to worry overmuch about how the neo-fascists will spin what I say. IT DOESN'T MATTER. In their narrative I am a communist and a terrorist promoting white genocide, and deserve to be murdered, simply because I'm not one of them. If I take a radical position, they'll call me a dangerous extremist. If I don't, they'll do that anyway, while also using me as an example of a cowardly Centrist who doesn't stand for anything, thereby "proving" that Both Sides Are Just As Bad.

I say what I think, and right or wrong, I'm not going to base it on trying to placate the Reich.

Hell, I've been compared to a collaborator on this board before for opposing Left-wing militia violence, so don't tell me to be more moderate in my response.

I know what the normally-expected role of the Queen is. I know that there's no good answer here. I also know that this motherfucker's going to start a recession, restart the Irish Troubles and decades of misery and bloodshed, and possibly lead to the disintegration of Britain as a country for the sake of appealing to racists to advance his personal power.

Edit: Fascists are like sharks. They smell weakness like sharks smell blood in the water, and it just encourages them to push further. I'm not saying we should be as violent or corrupt or dishonest or hateful as them, because if we were there'd be no point to any of this. But I'm done with "safe", "moderate" positions and trying not to sound too "extreme" because of how the fascists might react. You know what a fascist sees when they see a moderate?

An easy target.

That is false. 2018 was won by the Moderate Democrats mate, and doing things by the book has done far more to damage Trump than anything else the 'Progressives' tried.

"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"
- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

The thing about 2018 is that all those progressive candidates? They got crushed by the GOP. Hard.

The ones that actually won are the moderate dems, on a map that is literally set against them. People thought that it would be a Red Wave instead of what we've got at the time.

... then the Moderate Dems simply overran most of the GOP seats in the House and managed to not lose badly in the Senate. It was a Blue Wave in the House, a Blue Wall in the Senate... which is far more than anyone could have hoped for on a map that was literally against them.

The thing about 2018 is that all those progressive candidates? They got crushed by the GOP. Hard.

All, like Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Omar? So the footage of them that I saw in DC on Desus and Mero was some sort of trick photography?

"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"
- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

Edit: Fascists are like sharks. They smell weakness like sharks smell blood in the water, and it just encourages them to push further. I'm not saying we should be as violent or corrupt or dishonest or hateful as them, because if we were there'd be no point to any of this. But I'm done with "safe", "moderate" positions and trying not to sound too "extreme" because of how the fascists might react. You know what a fascist sees when they see a moderate?

An easy target.

One minor caveat to that. If we beat the Fascist Internationale by becoming as corrupt, violent and dishonest as they are, there is one small but important upside: They are the ones getting rounded up into concentration camps en masse or otherwise persecuted, and we aren't.

Not much of a victory, sure. But better than the alternative, at least from my point of view as someone who's lowered his aspirations from "make things at least a little bit less shit" to "still be alive after the last shot is fired" and probably isn't even going to manage that much.

There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin

Edit: Fascists are like sharks. They smell weakness like sharks smell blood in the water, and it just encourages them to push further. I'm not saying we should be as violent or corrupt or dishonest or hateful as them, because if we were there'd be no point to any of this. But I'm done with "safe", "moderate" positions and trying not to sound too "extreme" because of how the fascists might react. You know what a fascist sees when they see a moderate?

An easy target.

One minor caveat to that. If we beat the Fascist Internationale by becoming as corrupt, violent and dishonest as they are, there is one small but important upside: They are the ones getting rounded up into concentration camps en masse or otherwise persecuted, and we aren't.

Not much of a victory, sure. But better than the alternative, at least from my point of view as someone who's lowered his aspirations from "make things at least a little bit less shit" to "still be alive after the last shot is fired" and probably isn't even going to manage that much.

Ever heard of 'won the battle and loose the war'? That's how you lose the war.

The thing about 2018 is that all those progressive candidates? They got crushed by the GOP. Hard.

The ones that actually won are the moderate dems, on a map that is literally set against them. People thought that it would be a Red Wave instead of what we've got at the time.

... then the Moderate Dems simply overran most of the GOP seats in the House and managed to not lose badly in the Senate. It was a Blue Wave in the House, a Blue Wall in the Senate... which is far more than anyone could have hoped for on a map that was literally against them.

You're going to have to show a source for the claim that it was generally expected that 2018 would be a red wave.

As Gandalf noted, your claims are also undermined the presence of the likes of Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Omar in the House. Certainly, there are districts where moderates won- but this was by no means universal.

Edit: Fascists are like sharks. They smell weakness like sharks smell blood in the water, and it just encourages them to push further. I'm not saying we should be as violent or corrupt or dishonest or hateful as them, because if we were there'd be no point to any of this. But I'm done with "safe", "moderate" positions and trying not to sound too "extreme" because of how the fascists might react. You know what a fascist sees when they see a moderate?

An easy target.

One minor caveat to that. If we beat the Fascist Internationale by becoming as corrupt, violent and dishonest as they are, there is one small but important upside: They are the ones getting rounded up into concentration camps en masse or otherwise persecuted, and we aren't.

Not much of a victory, sure. But better than the alternative, at least from my point of view as someone who's lowered his aspirations from "make things at least a little bit less shit" to "still be alive after the last shot is fired" and probably isn't even going to manage that much.

There are those who would rather be destroyed than sell their soul to be the last mad dog standing on a pile of corpses.

Its a moot point, in any case. We won't beat them by becoming them, because we'd lose a lot of the people who currently support our side. Fascists are good at brutality and fanaticism. Its their natural instinct, and total war is their natural environment. They desperately want to provoke a no-holds-barred culture/race war. Why would you give them that?

We'll never beat them at their own game. If we want to do anything, we actually have to stand for something.

Do not make the fascists' mistake of thinking that brutality and amorality is the same thing as strength. It isn't.

"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

The thing about 2018 is that all those progressive candidates? They got crushed by the GOP. Hard.

All, like Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Omar? So the footage of them that I saw in DC on Desus and Mero was some sort of trick photography?

They're actually exceptions that prove the rule.

Again, how? To what rule are you appealing and how are they the exception that proves it? Back things up for once.

"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"
- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin